Posted on 01/01/2006 2:55:51 PM PST by SunSetSam
December 30, 2005 - The argument over whether President Bush has the authority to direct the National Security Agency to listen in on the conversations of suspected terrorists on US soil is split primarily into two camps; those who believe we are engaged in a war for our very survival against radical Islam and those who believe – and always have – that terrorism operates under a set of rules that govern its actions and therefore should be treated as a law enforcement issue. This is just another example of why there should have been a formal declaration of war after September 11, 2001.
It needs to be repeated as many times as necessary until every single American acknowledges this supposition as a distinct possibility; should we lose this war against radical Islam and the terror it uses to breed fear and submission, our way of life, our government and our country, will cease to exist as we know it.
Those on the “progressive” left have just begun mentally chewing on what for them is a gargantuan idea, that the military conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are but battles in a much more monumental war. Those who understand the danger facing our country have come to the realization that there are two major fronts in our struggle for survival; the physical front (locations of armed conflict) and the ideological front (where the battles for the mind of a society take place).
It is very important to be victorious on the physical battlefields and so far we have been successful. As much as the “progressive” left and the mainstream media would have us believe that we are struggling to achieve victory, the evidence of our success is overwhelming and validated by the millions of purple fingers we have seen in Iraq over the course of three truly free elections. It is further evidenced by the free elections in Afghanistan and accurate polling of both countries that indicate their people believe that their “future’s so bright they have to wear shades.”
If we are to compare Iraq to Vietnam in any way at all it would have to be in contrast. US military efforts in Iraq stand as testimony to the idea that if allowed to do their jobs, and complete their mission devoid of interference from the “progressive” elite in Washington DC and their blind followers who haven’t the vision to see past the daily protest march, the US military will always be victorious. They are superiorly trained and equipped, and motivated by the desire to fight for the freedom of oppressed people rather than, by gutless default, pave the way for tyranny.
More difficult than armed conflict, the ideological front is a battle for the will of our society and is already taking place on our own soil. The controversy over the NSA directive issued by President Bush is a prime example.
Again it needs to be repeated as often as need be; should we lose this war against the oppressive mandates of radical Islam our country will cease to exist as we know it. There will be no civil liberties. There will be no judicial recourse. There will be no petitioning of our government. There will be no First Amendment rights, or Second, or Third. If we fail to be victorious over the fundamentalist zealots who promote radical Islam, not only as a religion but as a totalitarian way of life, this “experiment in democracy” that is our government will be, if texts other than the Quran are even allowed, a short chapter in The History of Infidel North America Before Islam.
It is ironic then that an organization such as the American Civil Liberties Union is fighting for the “rights” of those who would dismantle and outlaw the ACLU, if not behead its leaders, should radical Islam be victorious.
It is paradoxical then that defense lawyers are attempting to have courts overturn the convictions of confessed terrorists and self-avowed al Qaeda operatives. For these lawyers to stand on principle is one thing, for them to stand on principle only to see their freed clients return to the battle against the very principles used to free them is quite another.
It is reckless for “progressive” politicians and activists to be arguing points of order regarding the president’s execution of this war effort when the same points of order, directives and tactics have been used by past presidents and validated by established courts and authorities. In fact, their obstinate refusal to acknowledge recorded history can very well be considered aiding and abetting the enemy and there are consequences for those actions written into the Constitution, unlike the mounting number of fictitious rights frequently referred to by the “progressive” left.
In an effort to safeguard the ideological liberties the Framers had in mind at the writings of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, the “progressive” left is willing to enable our enemies to use our own system to bring about our country’s demise. If the “progressive” left is truly supporting our troops and if they truly want to win the war against the encroaching influence of radical Islam and the terror they use to victimize all who stand in their way, if they are really on our side then it is time for their actions to speak for them instead of their words. So far their words have been selfishly divisive and irresponsible. It is beyond naïve to believe that their words are not being put to good use in the ideological battle our enemy is ruthlessly waging against us.
Nothing to apologize for. :-)
We put our faith and trust in them when we vote for them. Once upon a time, being a politican was a noble profession. One can't always believe that they are all corrupt. We vote hoping, maybe this time we elected a good one.
Most Americans are trustworthy, I believe. There are good and bad in the American selection pool.
What is the alternative? It's despots and dictators. Of all the countries in all the world, I say this is the country that tries hardest to do the will of the people. It's not perfect, nothing is. But, I thank God this is my country.
Once again, that doesn't bother me. Right or wrong, that's how I feel. Nothing is secure, was it ever?
I don't see any rights we've lost. The aclu is a greater threat to this country than our government.
Some despotic tyrants over in Africa are challenging that statement.
Some despotic tyrants over in Africa are challenging that statement.
Those guys aren't destroying THEIR people. They want to keep THEIR tribe happy and compliant. Not wanting to invoke Godwin's law, but Hitler wasn't out to destroy his people either. With nobody left to rule, ruling is totally empty.
I wasn't trying to make that comparison, as to which posed a greater risk. I was probing the extent of government action that would in fact constitute a loss of rights. I hypothesized an all-seeing Big Brother, and concluded that such an entity would not impinge my rights. I can think of lots of government incursions that are a pain to comply with, but am having a hard time coming up with a realisitic fact pattern that constitutes a violation of my rights. I don't expect to be quartering the military or a minder, and short of that, as long as I am free to move about (even if I have to show papers or other proof of meeting regulations), what right is lost?
Really? We must be reading different news. Does the name, Robert Mugabe ring a bell? What about Rwanda? Hutu's and Tutsi's? Government sanctioned genocide. Here's a list of African dictators.HERE
My opinion stands.
I know you weren't, I was.
I"m curious why the law seems so muddy.
susie
It's the internet gremlins. They get me all the time!
susie
I didn't say there was no genocide, just that Mugabe doesn't want to wipe out people loyal to hime or people that he can subjugate. Hutu's don't commit genocide against Hutu's. Tutsi's don't commit genocide against Tutsi's. Hitler aimed to exterminate Jews, not "his people." I ceratinly don't dispute the existence of despotic and evil rulers, and if that is the extent of your point, well, I agree.
And I stand by my original assertion, "No government, no matter how despotic, is out to destroy it's people." It may make examples out of some via shredder, public execution, terror or other methods, but it does so in order to subjugate and obtain loyalty from the rest. Once all of the people in a country are destroyed, the ruler will be all alone, powerless to control others.
I'm sure many are, but they aren't all. I have an aunt who is a NM state rep. She is honest, and she is honestly concerned that she do what is best for her constituents. It doesn't hurt that she's a republican either! But still, I cannot believe she's the only honest politician doing the job simply to give something back to this great country. susie
I know you weren't, I was.
Oh. Well then, if that was your point, why did you bother with the post? It was totally non-responsive.
I've pointed out to you that your statement is wrong. Yet you stand by an incorrect statement. That's your choice. Governments slaughter their own citizens. Why you won't admit that fact is odd.
but it does so in order to subjugate and obtain loyalty from the rest
In order to reach subjugation, thousands if not tens of thousands of their fellow citizens are murdered. They destroy their own people.
Gotchya.
I agree.
It wasn't. It went straight to the heart of the matter. Is it merely verbiage your after in response to your post?
It wasn't. It went straight to the heart of the matter. Is it merely verbiage you recognize in response to your post?
hiccup...sorry
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.